SurvivingInfidelity.com Forum Archives

So, i have been paying a lot of attention to the George Zimmerman trial, and have a question.

It seems to me that the juror can only judge the actual event of the shooting - and can not take into account the actions leading up to the event.

So, the fact that George was told by a 911 operator that he didn't need to follow the subject. The fact that once seen, George still followed Trayvon.

Can they not take into account that George's own actions put him into a position that he should not have been in the first place?

I am no lawyer, dont know the law as well as I should, but I am finding it really hard to justify why he shot that kid in the first place. Murder, no - I dont think George PLANNED on killing the kid, but he could have just walked away and let the police handle it you know?

Do I think he probably put himself in a position he shouldn't have? Maybe.

But from what I've read about the evidence, it seems pretty clear that at the time he shot him, George was down on the ground with Martin on top of him, and Martin was beating him and probably pounding his head into the ground.

From everything I've read, what I think probably happened: George did follow Trayvon, who got ticked about it and confronted him. There's no way to tell from there who did what that led to the rest, but it ended up with Trayvon on top beating George (at the very least - I think I read that George claimed Trayvon looked like he was reaching for George's gun too, but don't quote me on that!) At that point, George was afraid, had a gun, and used it.

Do I think it was self defense? Yes. Do I think that there was fault on both sides that led up to the whole mess? Yes.

In the end, from what I've read, there's no evidence that George ever actually attacked or physically threatened him - just followed him. And there is evidence that George was being beaten.

I do think it's a tragedy that should never have happened, but that there was likely fault on both sides. But if the only thing George did was follow Trayvon, and Trayvon attacked him, then the thing probably did get to a point where the shooting was self defense. Even if George probably shouldn't have followed Trayvon, that is no excuse for Trayvon attacking George.

Posts: 2725 | Registered: Nov 2005 | From: Maryland

Lucky2HaveMe♀ 13333Member # 13333

Posted: 12:47 PM, July 12th (Friday), 2013

This case is such a mess - I predict riots in FL at the verdict because I fear they will find him not guilty.

That said, George Zimmerman is an adult. The police told him not to pursue. He ignored that and continued. As the adult, he should have stayed in his truck. Even if Travon came up to the truck and "threatened" him, stay in your truck, call 911 and no one gets hurt let alone killed.

Love isn't what you say, it's what you do.

Posts: 8364 | Registered: Jan 2007 | From: WNY

Undefinabl3♀ 36883Member # 36883

Posted: 1:03 PM, July 12th (Friday), 2013

That said, George Zimmerman is an adult. The police told him not to pursue. He ignored that and continued. As the adult, he should have stayed in his truck. Even if Travon came up to the truck and "threatened" him, stay in your truck, call 911 and no one gets hurt let alone killed.

And this is what gets me. I have been really trying to stay objectified to all the information and the evidence, but I just can't seem to get that one point out of my head.

Mr. Zimmerman could have just walked away when he was told to, but yet, he choose to engage Trayvon rather then walk away. To me that shows some sort of intent, not to commit murder, but it shows that he was not just ambushed and had to defend himself, Mr. Zimmermen was actually on an offensive path and THEN had to defend himself....little different.

I dont think i could convict him of murder, but manslaughter for sure.